David Davis is running the meme that Cameron and his cronies are, with the departure of Coulson, at risk of getting out of touch with the rest of the population. This is tosh. The Cameron clique and its devoted claque have never been in touch with the population. But the worst of it is that they have never tried to get in touch, or even felt the need so to do. They come from that peculiarly British, upper class "toff" section of society that believes it already knows what is good for the common man. They need nothing so vulgar as contact with the oiks to inform them of what needs to be done.

For the likes of Cameron, communication is a one-way street. He talks, we listen. He would never actually see the point of having it any other way. And that is why he and his little mates, in the fullness of time, will crash and burn. We will do our best to help him on his way.

View full article here

So they have that in common with Ed Balls

http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2011/01 ... ranscript/

Of course, your diagnosis of Cast-Iron & co. is spot-on. However, it applies to pretty well to all politicians - remember what it was like under Bliar and Brown: plus ca change!

How in tune with public opinion was David Davis when he was ruthlessly whipping the Maastricht Treaty (without provision for a referendum) for nice Mr Major? And if Davis thinks that Eursoslime Scameron has ever been in touch with public opinion then he is equally out of touch. The Tories: selling out the UK to the EU for 50 years.

Beautiful put down of the Cameron clique and all they stand for, and, of course, the Davies character. He was all bluster when he resigned and stood again for election, got there and since then.....nothing! Still now we have Gove putting the gay thingy into schools we should get some effect....as in even less learning that is any use but it should increase the said community(if such a thing existed).

Very sadly I think Richard is correct.
It is very tempting to believe that all multi-millionaire 20 th generation aristos ARE different to early 19th century or 17th century or 11 century aristos BUT the evidence is just not there with this lot.
It is tempting to believe they really are democrats in their DNA, believing in the equal dignity and value of each voter, and that all the research, reasoning, input, insight of the population should get equal admission into the battleplace of political and economic ideas.
It is tempting to believe they believe everyone should have the right to aspire to a warm home, travel by air and road, holidays, good schools and clean efficient compotent welcoming hospitals.
But it looks like there is no fun in being super-rich and elite, if modern cheap travel, fossil fuel electricity, warm homes, good schools, good hospitals are available to all.
The poor and the powerless were poor and powerless for centuries because they could not travel further than they could walk whereas the rich could. The rich were travelling by air when most people did not have cars.
There is no fun being elite and powerful and billionaires if everyone's lifestyle (food, homes, warmth, travel, choice of clothes and recreation) is similar and there is NO DIFFERENTIAL TO SPEAK OF BETWEEN BILLIONAIRES AND ORDINARY PEOPLE.
The rich never wanted for food, or warm homes while there was a ready supply of homeless poor people prepared to work for lodgings and food.
For the rich to be on top again so as to really feel it, the poor must be impoverished further and disempowered of travel and warm homes.

Very well put... we need to keep reminding ourselves of this. If the world was a MMORPG there would have been a reset a couple of years ago.

I suppose the notion that the impulse to enslave had ended in mankind was tempting to believe in the 1970s. It was possible to believe we all knew (in every nation) it was morally unthinkable. That nearly 6000 years of slavery was over. Head hunting and cannibalism was stamped out by the British Army in Benin in 1898. Slavery in Africa was over.
Not even Maoist China, the Soviet Bloc, not even Cambodia, dented the belief slavery and the desire to enslave was over in human history.
But human trafficking in Western Europe, the slave sex workers in UK cities (within a mile of law courts), kidnapping for ransom in East Africa (and now many other places), piracy, ....the desire to enslave is alive and making a big come back.
The present leaders (who love to be in fashion and will change their views to stay in fashion) seem to be cofortable with moves to disempower the masses while getting clear water between them and the super-elite.
As Goneril and Regan said to Lear....."What need one ?"
Why should the poor, or the average adult, have any vote ? Or at least a vote with meaning ?
Not many had a vote in the early 1800s. Under half of today's adults could have voted 100 years ago.
This thinking is taking hold in Cameron's Bulingdon circles.
Since Magna Carta democracy and rights of the many were progressing but no longer.
We are regressing not progressing.

Jonathan paints a depressing picture with which I dolefully agree. The facts which he adduces speak for themselves. However, I doubt that our masters (tugs forelock reflexively) are primarily concerned with impoverishing us.

In olden times, a chap would own, say, Northumberland (I intend no disrespect to the present owner, whom I do not know -- I simply pick a county at random) and would be fully occupied with running it -- making sure the peasants kept the property in good order, abducting maidens, burning the odd hovel and its occupants, and so on.

Now, however, labour-saving and money-making devices have improved matters considerably, granting him ample time to reflect on how to improve the world. His theorising is not primarily intended to disadvantage the common man, but rather to advantage the uncommon man. However, it is true that a chap can grow testy when reality refuses to conform to theory. To the dweller of an ivory tower, that can look a lot like deliberate sabotage.

I think one of the greatest achievements of our political class has been to devalue the franchise to the point that it makes no difference which, if any candidate the common man gifts with his vote. And another is the effortless way they rob us blind by manipulating the mechanisms which govern our lives.

But I try to look on the bright side. I'd rather have my pitiful savings plundered through malfeasance, inflation and electricity bills than have some beefy baron rampaging through my back garden on a horse while waving a sword.

Oh I don't know, at least the beefy baron gives us a nice big target to aim at with our longbows.

Cameron chose Coulson as a standard bearer for non-public school opinion in his team, I cannot imagine a more eloquent way for him to express his disdain towards the British public.

When very famous multi-billionaires meet to discuss the world's ideal population being 1 billion in some cases (which it was in the mid 1800s) or in some cases more...it makes you wonder on the plans for the rest of the world population. Even eliminating 1 billion in the forseeable future requires a bit more euthanasia, abortion, starvation, freezing, or wars than at present.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 350303.ece
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=99105

http://www.lifenews.com/2009/05/25/int-1206/

I always thought there was something particularly seedy about the alleged tory "leadership election" results.
By all accounts David Davis was a clear front-runner. However, during the last week or so, a miracle happened,
the tories "woke up" and "realised" that Cameron was by far the best man for the job.And so it was.
However, DD was the better candidate, but DC was inserted by mysterious last minute swings in his favour.
The contest was between a working-class, ex council house lad, and an etonian.
Who, in Britain, should be surprised at the outcome?
But the Tories, and therefore the Nation, might yet come to rue the machinations of the tory party.

Do read this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/colum ... -home.html
When did DC start his leadership campaign ? Six weeks before The General Election in 2005 ?
Did he want Michael Howard to lose badly ?
Howard could have got another 40-50 seats. He was on the same vote as New Labour and bigger total vote in England. A better campaign and he was in hung Parliament territory and staying as Leader. Did Cameron really help or hinder the General Election Campaign. We now know he was not a Tory like Howard.
DD did not help himself when it was his to have. But there was something very odd about the media spin.
DD was the clear frontrunner and had by far the most MPs in support until the speeches. Cameron was zero content but without notes, walking around, and had a bit of apparent youth and oomph. DD seemed on mogodon, as though he was a boxer drugged before the fight. His speech had content but it seemed lacklustre.
Cameron's media mates in TV raced around after his speech saying on live TV that Cameron had wowed the Conference. The PR spin held.
Do try to quote one line from the speech. Hard isn't it ?
The other three contestants gave better speeches than Cameron and in Ken Clark's case he had a much much much bigger live TV audience. But no follow up PR spin so no great media headlines. This wobbled MPs.
Cameron's cronies did swing it for him, he still was far behind on first round of MP votes but had momentum. Fox and David divided their vote and in second round Cameron squeezed ahead. At this stage DD just gave up...the six week hustings were a total waste. No real questions, no real fight. DD had conceded before the 6 week saga.
Almost as if witchcraft was at play...DD blew it in the speech and failure to get real PR in place to spin his speech.
But even [b]excellent reporters like Chris Moncrieff thought DD seemed "disinterested" during his speech
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/eu ... 73195.html
[color=#FF8040]"But should one duff speech, delivered with seeming total disinterest, be enough to rob a man of the chance to lead the party? Is not that being a bit harsh on him?
Well, no, it isn't. Davis well knew that this was probably the most crucial speechof his political career so far. He might at least have sounded interested in what he was saying.
And he might also have demonstrated a bit of passion. The rafters in the Winter Gardens at Blackpool did not even tinkle, never mind ring resoundingly. And the roof remained firmly in place.
Making speeches is not just a by-product of being a politician. It is what they do.They get on their hind legs, as Enoch Powell used to say,to convince people of the rightness of their viewsand to persuade them to adopt that course".
Big BIG mistake to pick DC over DD but the Tories did.
They thought he was a true blue and did not realise he wanted them all out of the Party so lefties could take over.
Do read this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/colum ... -home.html